Yes, I am defending his ability to positively judge Trump’s pick. And I am not defending the choice of 88. I believe it’s not needed because the accusation is absurd.

No, it’s not a crime to be a nazi in the US. I hope it is in your country.

It actually is, but - believe it or not - people born in 88 don’t get arrested every time they add their birth date to a document.

I believe you.

I know you do. You would believe anything that helps you make sense of a complex world with a simple explanation: good vs evil. You are good, so anybody who disagrees with you is automatically evil. That’s it, no more wasting time understanding or thinking, straight to conclusion , always.

As I said, you are a cultist. You are exactly the same as MAGA people, just with slightly different moral values. You think to be fighting Nazism like those people are fighting immigrants ruining their country or stuff like that.

You are doing great buddy, now you got me, so absolutely, by any means, do not try to reflect on the fact you are projecting your culture on a Taiwanese person. Do not reflect on what’s the likelihood a normal guy, with a PhD in physics who built a great company that protects millions of people is actually a Nazi, and decides to show it because why not. Absolutely, don’t reflect on this! Sit on your absolutely simplicistic assumption, because this reinforces all your previous beliefs, and makes the world a much simpler place!

He supported Trump’s pick. I know reality makes little difference for you, but still. Also yes, he put 88 in his username, which is not a crime, especially for a Taiwanese guy born in 88 lmao.

The sole fact we are even discussing this is just absurd. Absurd. It’s 5g gives cancer absurd. It’s vaccine give autism absurd.

And I’m increasingly certain that you’re freaking out and defending him for it because you’re happy that your political party is represented.

Correct, because as non US citizen communist republicans are my party. In fact, anybody who disagrees with you is secretly a republican, and even more secret a Nazi, there is no other reason to disagree with you, absolutely. In fact, sudneo has “south” in it, and “o” at the end, what do you get it you put “o” south of “o”? 8, and that’s half of 88. Considering there is also “n” in it, and that’s 14, I think it’s quite clear that I am also a Nazi, trying to cover my Nazi colleague Andy. Heil Hydra.

You are just a maga with slightly different moral values. Still a cultist fanatic on a witch hunt that threw reason and reality out of the window.

I think he actually acknowledged that fact in later comments. Anyway, this is a far smaller sin than all the stuff people are creatively accusing him of.

Apparently now he is a Nazi, and I think this case was the last nail in the coffin for me to think that political discourse can exist.

If trump did a good thing in a very narrow context you can’t say it, otherwise you are a Nazi? OK, this is madness. Also, it’s not “sitting there for everyone to see” because it’s binary. You also realize that people have different cultural references right? Maybe it’s not your responsibility to compute the cabala horoscope for everything you do, and assume that people will be able to use at least the 2% of the brain and for example distinguish from a bold Nazi supporter with 88 tattooed and a guy born in 88 who appends 88 to his username (in a nerd way). But apparently not.

He created an account to speak personally and not from the proton account he uses before. Anyway, “he knew what he was doing” is conspiracy theory again.

This tweet happened right after trump picked for the antitrust position. The “time” is completely logical, the “place” is a tweet and the manner is a short statement supporting that pick. Also proton is a US company, so it doesn’t have the same reason to “bend the knee” as other US big tech are doing.

So it’s not that I am ignoring context, I genuinely don’t see relation. He praised something that he pushes for years, he did not suddenly switch to “free speech” like Zuck.

I don’t think they picked in this case either. Like they didn’t when they cooperated with dem senators in the past. They are cooperating or praising whichever side advances policies that can ultimately help privacy.

He is from Taiwan, studies in US and then moved to Switzerland.

They showed political stances all the time when it comes to privacy and antitrust, just look at their blog. Why wouldn’t they? What they do is also political, as a company.

Yes, a public figure, whose data can be discovered in few minutes, considers his birth year a secret. Also nobody ever used the birth year in their username on the internet.

Also ANDY = 1 + 14 + 4 + 25 = 44, which is half of 88 and contains 14, another nazy symbol. He is trying to pass it off as his name, but who uses their name on the internet? I will check the cabala now, because I am sure there is more.

God, I hope Nick Fury is already grouping the avengers, because Hydra is really making a move here.

This is at the same time:

• a novax level conspiracy
• a completely idotic assumption that not only doesn’t stand Occam’s razor, but not even basic common sense.
• racist and showing a colonial mindset, clearly prioritising what is relevant in YOUR culture (superior, more important), compared to what is relevant in that person’s culture.

Please can someone tell me how this attitude is fundamentally different from people who are in other cults (maga, novax, etc.)?

Added for completeness. Lots of people got pissed because they assumed he meant that in general republicans stand with the little guy, prompting comments such as “what about trans/immigrants/etc.”.

You did not do that, of course, but you can see how your comment could reinforce this opinion in people who didn’t read the actual tweet and discussion and were just looking for reasons to get angry.

I thought the whole point stood on “company whose main point is privacy”. In this case, his views on antitrust may be naive, but it’s quite easy to see how what he thinks might happen with antitrust/big tech is indirectly benefiting the privacy of users (worldwide). So doesn’t it fit directly with the opinion of a CEO of a company whose main point is privacy? Ultimately proton didn’t change product because of this trump decision, didn’t change internal policies, terms, privacy policy, nothing.

He praised one thing, and motivated that praise. It’s 100% possible to disagree, but I don’t find it concerning at all. I find it reasonable, because proton can better protect the privacy of users if more people can choose freely privacy oriented tools (like proton). Hence, if Trump does or says something that can help moving in that direction, it can be labeled as a good thing. Not every sentence is a collective or global assessment of all things considered.

When Trump wants to break up big tech it’s because he wants to eliminate the competition to his concentration of power.

• this is something US citizens should concern themselves
• it is only tangentially irrelevant
• if by breaking up monopolies people will be able to choose more privacy-preserving services, what you think is Trump’s goal will fail anyway. More privacy and less data is also a way to limit the amount of demographic targeting he uses so well in his campaigns.

So I am good with him doing the right thing for the wrong reason, and I wish him a swift failure afterwards.

doesn’t understand this or doesn’t care is deeply concerning

Have you considered that he might not agree with what is just your opinion? Obviously you are free to draw any conclusion you want and not use them.

That’s not context, that’s a superficial observation. Zuck kissed the ring by changing Facebook policy to align with trump/musk posture on “free speech”, Andy said he likes the antitrust pick. They are completely different things.

I know what happened, I followed quite thoroughly.

He thinks that republicans are now the ones with a higher chance to push antitrust cases against big tech (I.e., work for the little guy - EDIT: source). He thinks this based on the last few years and a few things that happened. He likes the nomination from Trump. How is this a full support to Trump? How believing that republicans will do better - in this area - equals being a Nazi?

Of course I believe that there is a fuss over nothing. The above statement has been inflated and I have already read “he applauded to Trump antitrans policies”, " posted Nazi symbols" and other complete fantasies.

Many people, who are on the internet on a perpetual witch hunt decided to interpret a clearly specific tweet (about antitrust and big tech) as a global political statement, and read that “little guy” as “common man” or - I have read it here on Lemmy - “working class”. Basically everyone tried to propose ideas about why that post was so awful, rather than first trying to understand what the hell he meant. I will agree the first tweet is ambiguous, but that’s because it’s a 200 characters tweet, he then explained his position quite clearly, and the summary above is what he actually meant.

This “context” added doesn’t move my post a centimeter IMO.

If that motivation still leads to work against tech monopolies, good. Can’t wait for people to do the right thing for the right reason. If that won’t happen it will be criticized as a lack of action.

Ultimately the benefit for the population is having as much freedom and fair competition in the tech space as possible. If that comes from Trump hallucinations, from a dream or from something else, who cares…?

He actually didn’t touch privacy, he touched antitrust and monopolies. The whole benefit to privacy is indirect by means of a level field.

He believes that republicans will do better than dems in terms of fighting big tech monopolies.

You are right about the generalization on parties, but the “little guy” he meant are small tech companies opposed to big tech. It was clear to me in the context, and to clear any doubt, he explicitly said that in a reddit comment.

I want to specify because this has been stretched on here as far as “he said republicans care for the working class”.

So, to get this straight, for you it’s impossible to recognize that a pick for a position is a good pick in the Trump government, by definition, without consideration of the actual pick?

To me this is religion, not politics or ideology (which I both consider very good things). To be even more clear, I consider Andy’s position completely rational and legitimate in this case. I believe it’s absolutely legitimate to be happy Trump picked someone good for a position and at the same time not support the rest 98%. At most, the interesting debate is why that pick is not good, which is 100% opinable and worthy of a discussion.

But saying that any statement, in any context, whatever narrow and specific equal full support is completely insane to me.

A conversation you never decided to engage, only to derail because apparently for you it must be really hard to say that you didn’t read the post completely, or that you missed something. You did clear mistakes (factual, logical, not opinions) in such a brief conversation, but somehow you are acting all wise “conversations change”. Sure they do, when you want to change topic because saying " yep, in retrospective it was stupid mentioning the last 50 years and I didn’t consider how much the argument I wanted to debate relies on a supposed change that I disagree happened". This is pretty much all there was to say. I did for you, so now I can go live in peace.